text:
F-111 emergency landing with no wheel; what is done to reduce risks when loosing a wheel?
There's an interesting incident described here about an F-111 that lost a wheel during take off.

Couple of questions:

What are the relative risks of an ejection vs a no-wheels belly landing. I mean obviously the costly loss of airframe. But is the risk to life pretty even odds?
In a conventional aircraft (e.g. civillian) ejecting is just not an option so belly landings are the norm. But in an F-111  is a belly landing still safer than a controlled, planned ejection?

The film interviews the pilots & they say something to the effect of

"It's good that someone on the ground noticed. Otherwise we'd have tried landing without even knowing that we didn't have a wheel."

Are there no sensors etc. that'd detect they had lost a wheel? Any other indirect indications based on asymmetric drag, hydraulics etc. that one may expect? In other words, how likely is it that one loses a whole wheel but  does not know.

Are there standard procedures where ATC uses binoculars etc. to check visually whether all seems OK with a landing aircraft (wheels etc.) I know they will check on request, but is there any standard protocol?

Don't military airfields lay down foam for emergency landings? Or is there a downside to foam on the runway?

What are the relative risks of an ejection vs a no-wheels belly landing. I mean obviously the costly loss of airframe. But is the risk to life pretty even odds?
In a conventional aircraft (e.g. civillian) ejecting is just not an option so belly landings are the norm. But in an F-111 is a belly landing still safer than a controlled, planned ejection?

Ejecting is an extremely violent event, often resulting in the pilot being removed from service for an extended time period, or permanently. 1 in 3 suffer back fractures or other major complications. Ejecting is possibly an end-of-career move for pilots (at best, an end-of-life one at worst). Belly landing on the other hand isn't usually a bad event, typically the aircraft is repaired and returned to service. In an ejection, the aircraft is a total loss, not to mention a rather large unguided bomb.

Are there no sensors etc. that'd detect they had lost a wheel? Any other indirect indications based on asymmetric drag, hydraulics etc. that one may expect? In other words, how likely is it that one loses a whole wheel but does not know.

No, there are no "wheel fell off" sensors. There are possible sensors to tell the pilot of low tire pressure, and certainly have sensors for hydraulic pressure. That isn't to say though that getting a low tire pressure means a wheels-up landing, landing on a flat tire is entirely possible. Drag probably isn't going to be significant, at least not enough to notice outside of gusts or other factors. That being said, having a wheel "fall off" is an extremely rare event, probably so few that you could count them by hand.

Are there standard procedures where ATC uses binoculars etc. to check visually whether all seems OK with a landing aircraft (wheels etc.) I know they will check on request, but is there any standard protocol?

Not typically, but ATC often watches departing aircraft with binoculars, not necessarily looking for missing parts though. In clear visual conditions, it would probably be pretty apparent that a wheel fell off to people on the ground, at the very least the next departing aircraft who had to avoid it on the runway. Usually when something falls off the aircraft, the runway needs to be closed while they do a FOD (foreign object debris) removal run.

Don't military airfields lay down foam for emergency landings? Or is there a downside to foam on the runway?

Yes, military airports can lay down AFFF (aqueous film-forming foam) on the runway, but you don't always need to. The down side is that it causes the aircraft to slide quite a bit further than it may be planned, and it's incredibly hard to clean out. If there isn't much of a risk of fire, its better to just belly it down in the grass. Or just let it slide on the runway. Most military aircraft can dump fuel and land without much fire risk.

By the way, if you think it is impressive to belly-land an F-111 after a wheel falls off, you should watch this video about an Israeli pilot who landed an F-15 with one wing!!!.

The efficacy of foam laying has been investigated a few times and the results found to be, at best, inconclusive.  The majority of belly landings don't result in fire and the level of damage seemed to be the same whether foam was used or not.  The Royal Air Force concluded that it was a waste of time and money in the 70s and abandoned the capability.  To my (uncertain) knowledge, no belly up since then has resulted in a post-crash fire or fatalities.

@Simon while not a complete belly up, this Harrier landing certainly resulted in a post-crash fire - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5sWuFYdlcI

I didn't realise ejection was so dangerous for the pilots too, though that does make sense. Interesting!

@Moo That bears no relation to a belly landing.  That was an uncontrolled crash.  A belly landing is performed under full control with the aircraft placed as gently onto the runway as possible.

@Simon that was a controlled crash - the landing gear had failed to lock, the pilot was fully aware of this and was carrying out the correct landing procedure for it.  The Harrier has abysmal lift at low speed, hence the approach speed - in such circumstances a vertical landing is out of the question as a safety issue if an ejection is necessary, a conventional landing imparts momentum to both ejecting pilot and aircraft, separating them by distance on ejection, while a vertical landing means the pilot would be ejecting over an uncontrolled jet that hasnt cleared the area beneath him.

Related to the point on sensors: Is pilot alerted of any physical or structural failures? and Does an aircraft like the Airbus A-320 have external sensors to detect damage to the aircraft? and to a lesser extent Are there any cockpit indications when an engine has separated from the aircraft? (and probably a handful of other questions as well).

@Moo Worth a separate question perhaps since this is not the place to debate, but the accident report states that the pilot began the approach "6500 feet" higher than normal and did not correct an excessive descent rate until 180 feet when he tried to use down vector and throttle to kill the descent and kill airspeed with the results as shown. No technical defect was found and that is certainly not the "correct procedure" for an unsafe gear indication.  The correct procedure is as gentle a vertical landing as possible.

AvHerald gives 29 hits for "dropped wheel" since 2010.

The reason people think it should know it lost a wheel is no data from all the wheel sensors and the wheel brake hydraulic line reading zero pressure. But that stuff is more likely to mean a sensor wire broke.

1.What are the relative risks of an ejection vs a no-wheels belly landing. I mean obviously the costly loss of airframe. But is the risk to life pretty even odds?

Realities of ejection:

Loss of a $30 million aircraft which is no longer in production
Violent separation of crew capsule (F-111s have a detachable crew capsule as opposed to conventional ejection seats) and violent impact of capsule on landing, even with successful parachute deployment and can be amplified by terrain conditions at impact site eg jagged rocks, uneven ground, etc.  This frequently causes injuries to the flight crew and should only be done if the alternatives to ejection pose a greater risk to life and limb.
Aircraft has to be abandoned in such a manner that it will not hit people or man made structures on the ground.  This requires ejecting over remote land areas or out at sea, creating a further impedance to rescue operations.
Crash of abandoned aircraft and subsequent destruction by fire creates explosion and wildfire hazards, toxic chemicals and other risks to people and or wildlife around or approaching the wreckage.

Realities of a forced landing with undercarriage retracted:

Difficulty and risk dependent on condition at landing site.  Long stretches of smooth, hard surface pose minimal risk to the aircraft and crew, though it is quite a wild ride; this is why military flight test facilities like Edwards AFB and China Lake NAS are placed on or near ancient dry lake beds.  Grassy fields with soft ground pose a greater risk as part of the airframe can dig into or snag the ground, tall grass, scrub, etc, violently yanking or possibly flipping the jet during slideout, increasing the risk of injury or death and the total loss of the aircraft.
No matter how you do it, you're going to damage the underside of the aircraft during the landing.  This will slough off the skin of the aircraft as well and grind down extended structures, frames and longerons, rupture fuel tanks and damage mission systems. That can be minimized with good airmanship and a smooth touchdown and controlled slideout.  Nevertheless, there is a risk that the aircraft will still have to be written off.
Belly landings increase the risk of FOD ingestion into the engines, damaging them and creating further risks to the aircraft and flight crew.
Directional control the aircraft is seriously diminished or non-existent at slower speeds, creating a risk of the aircraft veering off and striking structures in the vicinity of the landing area.

While the takeoff and wheel-loss event was not caught on film, I would take an educated guess that one of the main tires came loose from the aircraft just as it lifted off the runway and prior to the pilot commanding the retraction of the undercarriage.  I'm sure it made for quite a sight for tower controllers watching this big tire come loose from the jet and go bouncing down the runway.
As for the flight crew all that can be done once they get the call is 1) Don't Panic 2) Fly the jet 3) A quick check of the cockpit instruments and warning lights indicates nothing else is wrong with the airplane; we have X pounds of fuel on board which should give about Y hours of flight time with conservative throttle settings.  Let's get to a safe altitude to hold and see if we can work this problem out.  We're missing a main wheel? - OK.  What are the options?  Probably either ejection or a belly landing.  Neither the flight manual for the F-111 airplane nor ops knows or lists anything about attempting this sort of a landing.  Based on all the scenarios as well as the USAF belly landing of an F-111 they had on file, the decision from both the flight crew and ground personnel the route of minimum risk was to attempt a gear up landing with the use of arresting gear to slow the jet down faster.  So the flight crew sets up for a few low level, slow speed passes for practice while burning off fuel, then they make the attempt - and pulled it off with great success.

Are there no sensors etc. that'd detect they had lost a wheel? Any other indirect indications based on asymmetric drag, hydraulics etc. that one may expect? In other words, how likely is it that one loses a whole wheel but does not know.

Wheels coming loose from an aircraft like that is such a rare contingency that no such warning system has ever been considered for that.  There are landing gear position lights in the cockpit to indicate whether the landing gear is extended properly (down and locked) for landing.  There is also a Weight on Wheels (WoW) pressure switch on the landing gear itself to sense if there are structure loads being applied to the landing gear in order to lock out systems which should not operate when the aircraft is on the ground ie landing gear retraction, weapons, etc.

3.Are there standard procedures where ATC uses binoculars etc. to check visually whether all seems OK with a landing aircraft (wheels etc.) I know they will check on request, but is there any standard protocol?

Not on landing, but @RonBeyer's answer suggests that it's not uncommon for ATC to watch departing aircraft.  It's easier to notice things falling off than to notice their absence, and spotting FOD on runways is important.
As I said before this kind of incident is so rare it's not even thought of.  I'm guessing it came as quite a shock to the controller watching what should have been another typical Aardvark departure, then see what appears to be the wheel come off and go bouncing down the runway.

Thanks. No I didn't mean the ATC should be watching for just wheels coming off. But if there was standard protocol to observe a departing aircraft closely using Binoculars by ATC I am wondering if there's a class of problems that could be visually detected that might otherwise be missed.

The F111 uses an ejection capsule, not individual ejection seats. Basically the entire cockpit separates from the rest of the aircraft. It requires 3 parachutes to safely let the capsule down. failure of even 1 parachute can result in a unsurvivable landing.
I would think a belly landing would be safer.

@MichaelKjörling: Asked! http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/34064/are-there-any-known-incidents-of-ejections-by-capsule-how-are-survival-chances

Stay with the airplane
I did have a squadron mate who was leading a flight in the break and accidentally switched off guard on his radio in the turn downwind. Unfortunately for him, his radios were also on the wrong frequencies, and he missed the fireworks display set off by tower at the approach end of the runway. He landed gear up and he told me later that it was a bit noisy, but the aircraft slid to a stop. "It was a sickening feeling," he said, "when you know you should be touching down but are instead sinking through ground effect." He knew something was up, just couldn't figure out what. So landing with both gear up doesn't sound too bad to me, and better than an ejection. I would be interested to know if anyone has heard of taking the gear at the end of the runway in such a case?
I have known a pilot who took an ejection over the ocean after a mid-air in an ACM (dog fighting) engagement. He was flying within a week, and, although the accident investigation found him accountable, he remained in the Navy as a pilot. I don't know if it precluded him from being selected for CMDR. It certainly could not have helped.
At sea you try to get aboard the ship and stay out of your chute, especially true if it is dark out. Even a controlled ejection at sea is risky. Instantaneous G's in the A7E ejection were 40, which is enough to make you lose consciousness during that phase. There is a burnout phase of 20 G's. It is a 0-0 capable ejection seat, which means it will give you a swing or two in the chute if you eject at 0 altitude and 0 airspeed. Generally speaking, the envelope of the seat, or when can you can safely eject given your descent rate versus airspeed, is complicated and I don't remember having any quick way of knowing when it was safe to eject. There were points on the envelope that we memorized. For example, an ejection over 400 knots can dislocate legs and arms, not necessarily in that order. Most of the accident investigations I read, where an uncontrolled ejection was attempted, the pilot initiated outside the safe envelope of the seat. Pilot's like to stay with their aircraft.
Each emergency is evaluated by the pilot, and then, if time permits, maintenance and the skipper, after which a course of action is determined. All of these things factor in to a decision to stay or eject.
Over water your troubles are just beginning when you are in the chute. Once you gain consciousness you have to prepare for water entry. There is a possibility that you can get entangled with the shroud lines. The parachute also is a great sea anchor, and will drag you under. The procedure was to release your Koch fittings when the raft hit the water. The single person raft held your survival gear and was deployed from beneath your seat. It was on a 14 foot tether. To give you an idea of some of the risks you might not consider. My squadron mate hit the water, which was at around 60 degrees Fahrenheit, he was in a wet suit and wearing his Nomex flight gloves. By the time he got to the raft and tried to haul himself in, his hands were numb and useless. He had considerable difficulty just getting into the raft, let alone then using the emergency radio to coordinate with the rescue aircraft and helicopters.
By the way, the other plane in the mid-air lost the section of wing from the joint outward (basically the whole wing), where the aileron was located. Three redundant hydraulic systems maintained the hydraulic flight control system. He stayed with the aircraft and eventually was diverted to Crete where he did an emergency landing. Again, it is worth pointing out that there was no ejection even in this case. There was also plenty of time to talk with maintenance, test the flight characteristics of the aircraft near gear down speed, evaluate the situation, and decide the safest course of action.
The point is, as a pilot I always wanted to stay with the aircraft as long as I could. In fact, the only "standing" controlled ejection procedure I heard discussed was the case where you run out of fuel at the ship. They steer you to some location, where the rescue has been coordinated and you eject.
Use the net
With a missing strut or wheel the standard procedure on the ship is to take the barricade. I was covering the last recovery as a hot tanker. I was in my A7E with a buddy store and 2,000 pounds of gas to give away. The designated tanker was an A6 circling at 5,000 feet, I was turning and parked right on the foul line near the Island. If the airborne tanker went down for some reason, and couldn't fulfill its mission as tanker, I would replace it taking quick cat shot off the bow.
I was up departure on one radio, and listening to approach on the other. The last aircraft coming aboard was AJ501, an A6. I heard the pilot's initial call of "Alpha Juliet 5-0-1, ball." The LSO had a welcoming tone to his voice when he calmly responded, "Roger ball, a bit left for line up." I was sitting on the foul line and watching the approach. I heard the LSO's call for lineup, but watched the A6 drop its right wing, which was pretty closely followed by another less welcoming call for "Left for line up!" from the LSO. The driver of the A6 dropped his right wing again and was now in close.
I just sat there as he boresighted me on the foul line. Didn't reach for my ejection handle between my legs, just watched with my eyes wide open. Incredulous of what was happening. It never got past my eyes into the working part of my brain. The LSO sounded downright rude on his last call with "LEFT FOR LINEUP! WAVE OFF! WAVE OFF!" Even today I shiver at the call. The pilot reached enlightenment at that point, with me a close second, as he dropped the left wing hard with the ball going off the top of the mirror. There were probably some power calls in there as well, I don't remember. It was a very big correction to centerline with military power coming back on the jet, and the A6 impacted the deck on its left strut, which subsequently snapped off and skipped, sparking its way down the deck with a high final arc to its trajectory as it disappeared into the night sea. Power was at military and the aircraft boltered.
I don't remember if they went and got some gas, but the pilot had time to collect himself because they had to prepare the barricade. There is a good scene in the movie Top Gun where an A7E takes the barricade, and shows the crew raising the pylons. The barricade is basically a big net strung between pylons that are raised up out of the deck on either side of the landing area. The critical point for the pilot is that the top of the barricade, that suspends the net, is a wire cable that is capable of cutting the airframe in two if the net is missed on a high approach.
The aircraft returned, for probably the pilot's most difficult approach of his career. The LSO will make the approach window smaller due to the risks involved, meaning that the aircraft will be held to smaller differences from speed and glide path and waved off earlier in the approach. It was a perfect barricade landing.

While there's the seed of a very good answer here, the early anecdotes tend to be more distracting than helpful to your point of staying with the aircraft.  Simply stating that point then moving on to the gist of the answer would work better in the context of a Stack answer.

I disagree with you, and if you don't have room here for me then I will move on. Just let me know.

Perhaps a heading or two would be a suitable compromise?

Yes it would not only be a good compromise, but improve the writing. Good idea.

Done -- feel free to edit further if you feel it's needed

I also imagine when the landing gear fell off it may had caught the ATCs or another's attention, then directing to the ATC, upon impact or on one of the bounces of hitting the dirt and throwing up a cloud.
Maybe a bit off topic but I believe most military and larger domestic aircraft have the ability to release fuel. So prior to landing they would also release majority of fuel to reduce the weight of the aircraft.

Not only can the F-111 dump fuel, it can then ignite it!. Doesn't that sound like fun?


text:
Can one become a scheduled airline pilot with just one functional eye?
I was reading about TACA Flight 110 that amde a successful emergency landing on a New Orleans levee and I found out that the Pilot in Command was blind in one eye.
Just curious, under current FAA rules would such a pilot be able to get the Airman's Medical Certificate needed?
There's a related question, but that only discusses getting a PPL and even there the responses are quite skeptical. And here we're talking about a CPL, or more accurately a type-certified ATPL.
Have regulatory regimes become stricter? Even if the rules allowed it, would risk-averse/litigation-averse airline companies allow it? Are there other cases known?

What's the other question you're referring to? If it's this one, I don't see much skepticism apart from one answer that currently has zero votes (possibly because it isn't very accurate).

I don't know about FAA regulations, but there are definitely issues with a change from binocular to monocular vision for any reason. The UK official advice is that you should not drive a car "until you have been advised by your doctor or optician that you have fully adapted to monocularity" which "may take up to three months or more". I once had a minor injury to one eye which required wearing an eye-patch for a time - the temporary reduction in the field of view was very noticeable. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/350754/INF188X1_220814.pdf

@alephzero Yes, that's true and if you check the link I posted in my answer you'll see that the FAA recommends 6 months as the adjustment period for pilots

Under current FAA medical regulations a pilot with one functional eye (called monocular vision) can get any class of medical, including the class 1 required for airline pilots:

An individual with one eye, or effective visual acuity equivalent to
  monocular, may be considered for medical certification, any class,
  through the special issuance section of part 67 (14 CFR 67.401)

As the same page says:

it has been repeatedly demonstrated that binocular vision is not a
  prerequisite for flying

Incidentally, one of aviation's most famous pioneers, Wiley Post, had only one eye. As for today, it's legal and possible to get any class of FAA medical with only one eye and therefore in principle you could fly for any US airline. Whether or not an airline would hire you is a different question, but if you're legal and qualified then why not? Blindness in one eye isn't even considered a disability by the US government if the other eye is fine.
It's also possible that if an airline declined to hire you because of your monocular vision even if you hold an ATP and class 1 medical, you might have a case for suing them for discrimination. But that's speculation, and you would need to ask another site about that. In any case, there may be more pilots out there than you think with physical limitations (for want of a better word), including ones with prosthetic limbs.

Regarding the last paragraph, according to EEOC, ADA only applies if you're considered to have a disability and also does not protect against discrimination due to a disability if that disability poses "a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others" and that risk cannot be mitigated through a reasonable accommodation.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
What are the relative internal noise levels in various aircraft?
What are the relative noise levels in various aviation scenarios for observers seated inside an aircraft? I'm sure the specifics depend on model but I'm curious if any general trends can be drawn that are model agnostic.
e.g. Let's consider the following cases for a start:

Jet aircraft e.g. 747
Jet aircraft gliding with all engines out
Helicopter
Glider
Jet aircraft with noise insulation removed
Piston driven prop. aircraft

We could rate on an arbitrary 1 to 100 (noisiest) scale. Even better, in case data is available, I'd love to see the dB values. (@vortaq7's comment below)
I suppose speed will matter so we can probably use their typical cruise conditions for each case?
One motivation is to tease apart contributions from engine vs aerodynamic noise. Another is to quantify the effectiveness of sound insulation.
I suppose most of us never get a chance to really hear an all engines out jet nor to fly in a jet with no sound proofing.
PS. This question was motivated by some comments here:
What are these green "bags" on the SSJ100?

If reliable sources could be found it would probably be best to rate the aircraft on a standard scale (Sound Pressure Level (SPL) in dB). This will make it easier to compare to other sound measurements people may come across.

@voretaq7. Indeed. Great idea. I will change the question to reflect that.

"Jet aircraft gliding with all engines out" would probably be the most noisy cabin. More seriously, it'll depend on the seat location too.

@mins Noises of human origin? Let's exclude those. :)

@mins OTOH, I wonder if the gliding would be easy to notice for PAX not paying attention.

Agreed, but at some point you understand that you are descending, whereas you should be cruising. See also AC 143 and Speedbird 9.

Entirely subjectively speaking, as someone who's been in 1, 3, 4, and 6 in your above list, I'd rank them glider < modern commercial aviation jet < your typical GA prop aircraft < helicopter. Helos are bloody loud, really quite uncomfortably so. It's hard to have a conversation in a prop plane, or a helo, without amplification. You can practically whisper in a fibreglass 2-seater glider and be heard by the other pilot.

@Landak I'd agree with your assessment minus the helo part (never been in one unfortunately).  I feel like I should note that different models of glider (and even different gliders of the same model) can have quite different sound characteristics (a Blanik L-23 is much louder than a Grob 103, and they both get significantly louder the faster you fly).
On the same note, the sound levels in commercial jets can vary between models, and even where you sit in the cabin.

Let's start with the items for which hard data is easily available:

This FAA chart gives relatively average noise levels for passenger jets, GA turbine aircraft, and helicopters. In addition, this chart should start to give an idea of how much noise is generated aerodynamically in aircraft:

While this is older ground data and not cabin data, it still serves to show that the contribution of aerodynamic noise to total nose levels is not insignificant.
Based on this, I would say that a likely ranking of these environments, from loudest to quietest, is:
1/2: Helicopters and uninsulated jets. In both cases, the close proximity to large, powerful engines leads to extremely high noise levels.
3: General Aviation piston-engined planes. Again, these generally have little insulation,but smaller engines generating somewhat less sound.
4: Passenger jet cabin. Protective insulation reduces sound, but actual noise levels vary based on seat position.
5: Passenger jet cabin, gliding. As seen in the second chart, aerodynamic noise still contributes to a relatively loud environment.
6: Gliders. Slower speeds and cleaner aerodynamic profiles reduce aerodynamic noise, leading to a much quieter ride.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How do I calculate the required heading for an aircraft carrier with an angled deck to sail into the wind?
The natural wind is from 360 degrees at 10 knots. The desired relative wind down the angled deck is 10 degrees left of the ship’s heading at 30 knots.
What heading and speed must the carrier go?

Is it not 10 degrees and 20 knots?

Ha! Yeah, I think you’re right. Thet’d give you a bit less than 30 kts, but pretty durn close.  I was making it waaay too hard.  Thanks.

As I think about this further, I see it’s not right.  Heading the ship 10 right of the natual wind would put wind down the angle only when the ship was stopped. As the ship speed increases the relative wind direction will move closer and closer to the ship’s heading.

If the ship has to steam forward to make its own wind, it will never be right down the angled deck.  Just the limitations of the layout.

Where are we going to find a carrier to test the answer? :)

@Juan Jimenez, I wish I could just walk up to the bridge to ask them how they do it!  But, I imagine it isn't too complicated...

@Tad Chamberlain, just to clarify, you are absolutely correct in your statement that "as the ship speed increases the relative wind direction will move closer and closer to the ship’s heading."  However, the answer I gave below is also true.  This is the trade-off...

Just for curiousity's sake, why do you want to calculate it?  Rather than say point the ship more or less into the wind, then look at the wind sock and make corrections?  (Which you might have to do anyway, as winds change...)

A carrier heading of 010 degrees at a speed of 20 knots would give you an acceptable solution.  You could perform some vector addition to compute the resultant wind and perhaps optimize this somewhat, but in reality the winds are generally not constant enough to make minor adjustments worth chasing.
Even if the winds were calm and the ship was making all 30 knots the crosswind component is almost negligible, and well within limits for any carrier based aircraft.  This happens a lot.  There is a bigger negative effect from  turbulence caused by the island structure when the ship has to make wind than any effect of increased crosswind.

Let’s suppose that the runway is angled by 10º to the left. To start with, let’s assume there is no wind, and that we wish 30 kts of relative wind parallel to the runway. The speed of the carrier (with any heading) will be 30 kts/cos 10º = 30,46 kts.
Now, we have a wind with a speed of 10 knots in relation to the sea. We change the heading of the carrier in order to take the maximum advantage of that wind, so that it may be parallel to the runway. So the carrier steers to a heading exactly 10º to the right of the wind direction. Now we have too much wind, 30 + 10 = 40 kts, and we should reduce the ship’s speed in proportion to that excess of 40/30. In other words, the carrier should steam at 30,46 x 30/40 = 22,85 kts.
Hence, the carrier should have a heading of 10º to the right of the north, and a speed of 22,85 kts...

The conditions given in the original question was 10 knots of natural wind from due north.

True. Edited...

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Is there a graph that shows the thrust required for a given airspeed?
I would like to see the graphical relationship between thrust required and airspeed for a typical general aviation aircraft, e.g. C-150 or C172 series.

Closely related, does that help at all?

For horizontal flight, thrust required is the same as drag.  Go to the specific graph referenced in this answer How close is the air resistance or drag force to be proportional to the speed squared?, and you'll have your answer, or close to it.
The specific graph referenced here is for "a conceptual two-seat light sport aircraft (LSA) designed to cruise between 80 and 100 kts".  A Cessna 150 or 172 might need somewhat more power for the same cruise speed.

Thanks, but I was looking for a graph, much like a glider polar.

That's what the figure I'm referencing is-- check it out.

I'm sure someone will eventually provide a link to a similar graph for a more typical GA plane but it's a start--

I couldn't locate a graph.  Lots of good info though.  Running out of time now, but will check in later.

The graph is near the bottom of the linked webpage-- it's the third-to-last figure.

Thanks for the dialog. I found the following graph independently.  It shows the general functionality - and that is all I was looking for at this point.

It appears impossible to post a graphic, but here is the link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.studyflight.com%2Fflight-for-range-and endurance%2F&psig=AOvVaw273h0qbOE4yGtfoVZehxWn&ust=1582916444923000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCKjTpLW18ucCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD/

@MarkW -- your link seems a little confused, it seems something didn't get copied right-- if you scroll to third-to-last-figure on webpage linked in my post, you'll see what I'm talking about, probably very similar to the figure you were trying to link to.

you are correct.  The figures are similar, as one would expect. I simply "googled" Cessna 172 drag polar.  Here is (hopefully) a useable link. https://www.studyflight.com/flight-for-range-and-endurance/

In the first set of figures, I was looking for the graph on the left.  The "total drag" vs. Air speed that was in your reference is just beside it.  Thanks again...this was a fun dialog.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Do aircraft manufacturers take steps to prevent pests like geckos from damaging the electronics?
Many Australians are suffering huge bills due to geckos getting into the circuit boards of their air conditioning units. Of course this is highly profitable for A/C manufacturers as they supply replacement boards on a virtually annual basis. I noticed in my unit that a simple fine mesh would have been sufficient to keep them out of the critical space where the circuit boards are.
My question is: do aircraft have the same potential problem and are aircraft manufacturers taking any steps to prevent this?

It isn't typically a problem for aircraft that are used often, as the electronics aren't easily accessible from outside. The bigger problem is aircraft that sit a while can get bird nests, rat nests, squirrels, etc which can cause damage to the engine/electrical systems. I would suggest editing your question to focus on any kind of pest problem (not just Geckos).

The German government can confirm that planes can suffer from pest infestations. Although i can imagine that atleast the bigger airports take measures to prevent pests from being a problem for parked planes.

Blocked pitot and static tubes tend to be the biggest safety concern, as those are exposed to the outside air. Most aircraft electronics are in their own cases, which pests are very unlikely to get into.


text:
Are there any specific weight or structural reasons to choose low vs. high wings for a cargo aircraft?
I have a large cargo aircraft concept and I am debating between a high or low wing.  It seems like both are viable, but intuitively it seems structurally harder to support a high wing.  Alternatively though I like the idea of a high wing to raise the engines and provide better field landing abilities.  Can anyone comment on the weight penalties associated with one concept or the other?  Is there a structural advantage to one configuration?

@fooot None of the answers on that question answer this question, so this question shouldn't be closed as a duplicate.

The biggest issue with a low wing aircraft is the main wing spar that will run through the aircraft. This is why most heavy lift cargo aircraft are high-wing designs, like the C-17 Globemaster III and the Antonov AN-225

@Ron, the spar will run through either way. If we don't want to compromise the internal space, we can drop the low wing below the fuselage, like on Cessna Citation, or raise the high wing, like on IL-76. The real issue is simply the ground clearance and deck height.

You don't need to support the wing-- rather the wing needs to support the aircraft.

They usually have high wings for practical reasons, it's a lot easier to load the cargo, than to a a low winged aircraft where the fuselage is higher to give enough clearance.
In terms of structural weight, there is probably little difference. I checked Howe's conceptual design book and high or low wing doesn't seem to affect the structural mass.
Packaging the landing gear and its difference in length can change the mass, also if any aerodynamic fairings are required it can increase drag and result in fuel penalty.

@Ron Beyer has pointed you in the right direction.  Study existing designs going all the way back to the Gigant.
The wing is by far the strongest part of the aircraft as it must carry leveraged aerodynamic loads and the weight of the aircraft while flying. A low wing may be slightly stronger to positive G loads as the fuselage forms an arch over the middle of the wing.  However, for cargo transport the high wing offers the advantage of a lower set, roll through cargo bay and more stability in flight.
As far as landing gear, the low wing offers placement
of gear on wings for wider track. High wings mount theirs in the fuselage, but the high wing offers the opportunity for greater ground clearance of obstacles on "unfinished" landing strips.
As you can see both are made and both are in service worldwide.  Commercial freight would favor the 747 type, military the C-17.  And let's not forget turboprops for fuel efficiency!
Both high and low wings will fulfill the requirements for cargo hauling, what about both on one plane to get wingspan back under 150 feet!.

Thank you for your answer

As already pointed out, the best thing you can do at this stage is to study existing designs. There are plenty of them.
You will notice that nearly all aircraft that have a ramp and are designed to carry self-loading cargo (like vehicles) are high-wing design. (Most of them are military). So, there must be a good reason for it, even if it has some penalties. And the reason is simple: the ramp slope can't be too steep, and you don't want the ramp to be too long; thus you want the cargo deck to be as low as possible. This is only achievable with a high-wing design, with its low ground clearance.
Some of such aircraft, like An-124 and C-5, can even 'kneel' the nose gear to provide even lower deck height.
By contrast, most commercial cargo aircraft are loaded at well-equipped airports, mostly with containers, and don't need a ramp. They typically are converted passenger aircraft, which are predominantly low-wing.
There are 'objective' advantages and disadvantages to each design. Briefly, the high-wing design is better aerodynamically (has less drag, other things being equal), but presents more structural challenges. Smaller aircraft, e.g. Dash-8, can afford to run the main landing gear up to the wing, where you really want to mount them. But otherwise you need serious strengthening of the fuselage between the wing and the landing gear mount. Presence of a ramp, and thus a big cut-out in the fuselage, is another headache.
Nevertheless, the respective advantages and problems are not fundamental, and practical considerations outweigh them, as you can see from the study of existing examples.

Thank you for your answer


text:
What are the hinged(?) structures in front of the F-4 Phantom's intakes?
What are the large flat structures on the sides of the F-4 Phantom directly in front of the engine air intakes? They are more or less square, and may be hinged vertically.

Neither the answer here nor the alleged duplicate is complete. In addition to the assembly being a splitter plate, the hinged component is part of a variable intake ramp, used to optimize the intake geometry in order to get good pressure recovery at different mach numbers. This innovation significantly increased the top speed. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc283785/m1/37/


text:
Why is a reduction in lift called 'drag'?
Induced drag is high pressure air 'leaking' to the upper part of the wing (low pressure zone) creating a vortex which means the area of the wing tip with the vortex can't create lift. Drag on the other hand is the opposition to the flow of air. Why is induced drag called a drag when it doesn't oppose oncoming air but instead reduces wing lift?
Same thing applies to interference drag, high pressure air from the top wing of a biplane leaking to the low pressure of the wing underneath it hence reducing lift, yet it's called drag when it actually reduces lift.
So my question again is why is interference drag called a drag when in reality, it reduces lift and does not oppose oncoming air?

The terms lift and drag are arbitrary, to some extent. There are lots of forces acting on an aerodynamic shape, and we label those that oppose the motion as drag, while those that are pendendicular to it as lift. They are convenient inventions of terms.  A wing doesn’t feel lift or drag. It just feels pressure and shear.

@MikeY: No, they are well defined. All what is acting rearwards and parallel to the airflow is drag and all perpendicular to it is lift. Per definition.

@Peter, your definition for lift and drag matches mine.

@Jessica Ham. It might help to consider lift as a subset of drag.  In in order to have lift you must have motion, all motion creates drag.  Interference drag, as in biplanes, is a way of saying the energy I put into the first wing to create lift is moving the air in such a way that it degrades lift in the second wing, for example if I pitch up and the airflow from the top wing affects the lift creation of the bottom wing.  This can also happen if engine pylons are too close to the upper wing, but they do not have nearly as bad an effect if below the wing.

Induced drag to me is the drag penalty that you get from accelerating air downwards. The more you have to accelerate the air the higher the drag. This doesn't reduce the lift it just creates a resistance in moving forward, a.k.a. drag.

Delta wing aircraft need the vortex to create significantly more lift than without it. It stabilizes the air on top of the wing by constantly pushing the air down with the vortexes.

Induced drag is unrelated to leaking and vortex creation. It exists even in a wind tunnel where the wingtips touch the walls and thus prevent leaking and vortices.
Then what is induced drag? To create lift, the wing needs to be at some angle with respect to airflow (or be asymmetric), so the force vector points mostly upwards but also somewhat aft. Forces that point aft are generally called drag. Induced drag is thus a 'real' drag, not a reduction in lift.

Induced drag is indeed related to vortices. However, I would not characterize the effect as:

a vortex which means the area of the wing tip with the vortex can't create lift

Instead, imagine that each section of the wing generates a vortex, which induces downwash/upwash (downward or upward flow of air) on another section of the wing. Because of the finite span of the wing and, as you put it, vortex rollover at the tip, there is a net downwash generated at each section of the wing.
Another way to visualize downwash is to think of it as an additional flow incidence on the wing, or an induced angle of attack ($\alpha_i$). Since the induced flow acts downward, it reduces the effective AOA on each section:

(https://www.theairlinepilots.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=366)
Not only does the induced AOA decrease lift, it also points the lift vector rearward from the reference flow. The sum of that component from every wing section is the induced drag.
You also mentioned interference drag. This drag is separate from the classical induced drag and is related to vortices/eddies created by the joining of two surfaces.

Very well written with a good reference.  The reduction in lift at wingtips (effective AOA), requiring higher AOA of entire wing to maintain lift, is PART of induced drag, and leads to an explanation of ground effect (in the reference).  However, pitching the entire airfoil to create lift, as Carlo explained, creates induced drag (and vorticies).

Please see my reply to Carlo's answer.

No induced drag is a horizontal vector component of the lift line, which itself is a resultant force vector from altering the momentum of air flowing around an airfoil or other lifting surface.  You’re on an interesting track there as both lift and drag are resultant forces from altering the momentum of air moving around an object.  Lift is just described as the sum of all forces in the direction opposing gravity While drag is the sum of all forces opposing the force of thrust on an aircraft.

Induced drag is a 3D finite-span effect and has nothing to do with airfoil.

Negative.  Induced drag is ALWAYS present when an airfoil is generating lift.  While wingtip vortices are one component of induced drag, it is by no means the only source of said drag.

This probably deserves its own discussion. Induced drag is a term discovered from lifting line theory developed from 3D potential flow. In 2D potential flow, induce drag is completely absent. In fact, a rotating circle can generate lift in 2D potential flow with zero drag (see Anderson, Fundamentals of Aerodynamics), which is called D'Alembert's Paradox. For a 2D airfoil, there is some small drag in potential flow, but I would call it form drag since it has do with the shape and so forth.

Induced drag is the drag caused by producing lift. All lift production causes drag, and induced drag is the blanket term for this. It's not specific to the wingtip vortex. It doesn't necessarily "oppose oncoming air", but it is a force that acts rearwards on the aircraft, so it's drag.
Interference drag is a question of perspective. It's like induced drag, but it's not producing lift. You're seeing that from the point-of-view of the lift it's not producing: "if this were productive, induced drag, it would be generating this much lift, so it must be a reduction in lift". But it's not producing a downward force on the aircraft, it's producing a rearward force on the aircraft.
You could choose to see all parasitic drag in the same way: "if this were a lifting-body airframe, and all this parasitic drag were induced drag with the same L/D ratio, it would be generating this much lift," but it's not very helpful to think that way. It might lead you to think that you shouldn't get any parasitic drag (or any interference drag) when the wings aren't producing any lift (e.g. when stalled), and then you'd be wrong.

Actually, interference drag is a mixture of induced (due to distortions in the spanwise lift distribution) and pressure drag (from early flow separation). This term is not really helpful in describing what is going on in detail.

The reduction of lift is not called drag. Lift is the sum of the forces acting to oppose the (apparent) force of gravity. Drag is the sum of forces acting to reduce momentum. Induced drag is anything that has the consequence of causing more drag (such as vortices coming off the wing-tips).
These answers  might address a lot of your questions

Thinking of lift and drag as “causing” each other is—by definition—technically flawed. Lift and drag are the “final” “result” of the magnitude of various pressure forces acting on the airfoil in various directions, resolved into two directions: parallel to the direction of airfoil travel and perpendicular to the direction of airfoil travel. The former is called Drag, the latter is called Lift.
Being perpendicular to each other, lift cannot possibly cause or reduce or increase drag, and vice versa. If you are looking for the factors that will affect the magnitude of the final lift force or drag force, you need to talk about what will change the magnitude or direction of any of the various pressure forces that are produced on the airfoil.


text:
Do fighter jets experience a reaction or recoil force upon firing a missile?
When fighter jets fire a missile, do they observe any kind of reaction force due to firing the missile? If yes, how is this observed by the pilot? If no, why not?

Related: How do pilots maintain level flight after launching missile?

This is not a duplicate to the mentioned question. The mentioned question pertains to COG shift, where as my question os regarding the reaction force !!

Short answer, which I will make real when this question is reopened - there is no reaction force because missiles are self-powered and don't 'press' against the plane like a bullet does. Many missiles don't ignite until they are detached from the aircraft. There is a CoG change because of the loss of the missile's weight.

@DJClayworth The COG change is extremely minimal.  The main difference is that the wing is usually more efficient with a missile on the tip, they act like winglets.

Would someone vote to reopen this question, as it is fundamentally different from the duplicate question

@DJClayworth: The question is reopened (unfortunately SE does not notify about that).

No, rocket missiles are recoil-less weapons.
When firing a gun, the charge burns inside the chamber and the generated gasses do not escape before the shell leaves the barrel, so the reaction force is transferred to the body of the gun.
When firing a rocket missile however there is open space behind he missile and the reaction force only accelerates the generated gasses that are ejected off the back and does not affect the launching platform significantly. This is true for missiles launched from tube (like Bazooka, TOW or Hydra 70), off a rail like the wing-tip sidewinders or from free fall like most of the heavier air-launched rockets.
The lack of recoil is an important advantage of rockets. Bazooka can be fired from shoulder while anti-tank gun with comparable explosive charge is heavy device and needs good support to handle the recoil.
On the other hand rockets need more propellant than comparable gun shells, because the generated gasses leaving at high speed carry away a lot of kinetic energy most of which would be available for the shell in a gun.

In some early jet fighters such as the F94 Starfire, air to air unguided rockets were carried in launch tubes that were built into the aircraft structure and closed at the rear end. Launching the rockets could produce enough recoil to cause serious control problems, and this type of armament fell out of favor as a result.


text:
How does aircraft weight affect the glide performance?
Since the L/D ratio remains unaffected by the aircraft weight, will there be any effect to the gliding range?

related? https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/606/1467

The gliding slope, which equals $D/L$, does not change with weight. Hence, starting from a given height $h$, the longest gliding distance will be $d = h \cdot max(L/D) = h \cdot max(C_L/C_D)$, i.e., independent of weight.
However, the gliding speed, and, consequently, the gliding time, do change with weight, and significantly. If $C_{L,max}$ is the lift coefficient when $C_L/C_D$ is maximal, the gliding speed at best slope, $\bar{V}$, is obtained from $W = (1/2) \cdot rho \cdot \bar{V}^2 \cdot S_{ref} \cdot  C_{L,max}$.

You might add that the gliding speed can then still affect distance: gliding against the wind you'll get further if you go fast (that is, are heavy) and gliding with the wind you get further if you go slow (that is, are light).

You are right, Federico. My experience with sport flying (engine out exercises) tells me, however, that maximizing glide distance is not a good strategy (unless you are at 10,000 feet attempting to reach a not-to-far marked airfield.) In a low-altitude engine out situation, one should concentrate on the essentials, certainly not on how to adjust the glide slope to the wind. And the most essential thing is to select a relatively near open space to land on, near enough so that you can see its features and judge that it wo'nt kill you.


text:
Which industry started to develop CFD software?
Which industry first started to develop CFD?
(aviation,car-industry,meterology or maybe someone else)

The foundation for CFD is the Navier-Stokes equations, published in 1822. The first application of CFD was in aviation in the 1930s; this analyzed two-dimensional flow, computations were done by hand. Then meteorology in the 1940s. Most of the early work was done in academic and government research circles, the first large-scale user was the Los Alamos National Laboratory (for work related to nuclear weapons). NASA was also an early user.
By 1967, Douglas Aircraft was using and developing CFD. Boeing published some of their work in 1968.

CFD in fact was developed by the aviation industry due to the need to calculate transonic and hypersonic flow over airfoils and wings.
In 1960s and 1970s with the emergence of the concepts of aircraft such as 777 which would fly in the transonic regime, it was important to calculate the viscous flow field around the aircraft accurately (simple, but elegant rules like Prandtl-Glauert rule did not suffice).


text:
Is it practical to install seat belts in airline lavatories?
Many times passengers might found themselves in the lavatory, when turbulence happens. During such times, do the handlebars inside the lavatory provide adequate support to the passenger, or does it makes more sense to install some kind of seat belt?
My question comes from the premise, that if a passenger is in the lavatory when sudden turbulence hits, he/she may not have such necessary aids to prevent injuries, which might lead to a claim of negligence against the airline.
I am mostly looking at answers concerning commercial airlines.

it might be practical to install them, but it may not be practical to keep them clean enough for people to actually touch them and use them. Handrails or other grips are probably a better idea, and they're already installed in many larger, newer aircraft.

Also, most airline lavatories I've ever been in are such a tight squeeze (and I'm a small guy), that there's really not all that far for turbulence to throw you.

Oddly, I think this question may be a bit off topic.  The answer to this question requires some amount of legal insight, and possibly a good idea of what precedent in a case like this might be.  If there's a stack for legal questions, this might be better served there.  Edit: There is one, here it is: http://law.stackexchange.com

@JayCarr there's certainly a legal side to it, but you'll often find that in aviation. I think it's on topic, not that far from this other question, just more specific.

@fooot Maybe, but at the same time, the OP mentions "claims of negligence", which would be off topic for this site.  That being said, I'm not sure the claim of negligence is really central to the question...

@JayCarr I agree, the focus seems to be on the use of seat belts and possibility of injuries and not whether they could claim negligence.

@fooot I agree, and it's pointless discussing the negligence angle anyway because a) we're not lawyers, and b) at least in the US, anyone can sue anyone else for more or less any reason. So the answer to "could they sue?" is always yes, and the answer to the real question of "could they win?" isn't an aviation one. But here, that's only the thought that led to the question, I think the question stands alone anyway.

+1, but I wonder if you can get an answer which is not an opinion.

I, for one, would not want to handle a seatbelt installed around a public toilet!

@fooot you're right. Focus is on practicality of a seatbelt or providing safety to the passenger inside lavatory.

Why do I suddenly see the guy in the movie Airplane! trying to shave in the bathroom?

Aircraft potties are so small, there's no where to go.

Maybe we can arrange a detachable seat belt, like the one for babies, with a disposable cover on top of it, which can be applied and peeled off (like a velcro cover), to address hygiene issues.

While it may appear at first glance that a seatbelt could simply be installed, it is not a simple answer. There would actually have to be some significant certification analyses and testing done. Seat belts tend to be fabric. While those fabric lap belts are approved for the rest of the cabin, the lavatories have different certification requirements especially regarding propagation of a fire in the enclosed space. There would have to be fire certification testing done and analyses to verify that the information gained during the certification testing was applicable to all configurations.
Also, who would want to use or even touch a lap belt that was installed in the lavatory while someone with explosive diarrhea experiences turbulence? Eww! I wouldn't want to use it as a passenger or service it as a mechanic. That is a biohazard.

Potty belts are common on business jets. They could be installed on airlines.
E.g.:
http://www.embraer.com/en-US/ImprensaEventos/Press-releases/noticias/Pages/Embraer-certifica-assento-extra-para-o-jato-phenom-100.aspx

It looks to me like this is an option to turn the covered toilet into a FAA-approved seat so the jet can be certified to carry an extra passenger. The extra passenger is sitting on top of the toilet, but not on the toilet. That's a little bit different from putting a seat belt in an airliner lavatory, where the intent would be for people to actually use the toilet for more than just sitting. The article does raise an important point though, which is that just putting a seat belt on a toilet may not be good enough; the toilet might also have to meet the certification standards for seats.

Yes, using a a toilet seat for takeoff and landing  would need certification. But adding a belt to a toilet where none is required now should be simple, and could protect the occupant if unexpected turbulence was encountered.


text:
How can a private pilot prepare for a long cross country flight in an unfamiliar area?
TL/DR: What are common preparation tips or techniques for low-hour private pilots planning long cross country flights in unfamiliar territory?

I got my private pilot's license in November 2016 in Hawaii. I've since moved back to the mainland to continue working and flying here. I'm currently in Phoenix and have been checked out for Cessna 172 rentals at a local airfield.
Over MLK weekend (Jan 14-16) if the weather is nice I hope to fly from Glendale (KGEU) to San Luis Obispo (KSBP) then to Rancho Murieta (KRIU) near Sacramento, and back to Phoenix. My girlfriend plans to come with me and I want to do everything that I can to prep and plan this flight to minimize our risk.
I have about 75 hours total time, mostly in 172s and DA40s and all my cross country time has been on the Hawaiian islands where it is nearly impossible to get lost and there are few airspaces enroute.
I'm very comfortable with VOR navigation but I'm not yet accustomed to the smaller Garmin G430 GPS unit in the Cessna here (I'm spoiled, used to the G1000) so I don't want to stress with the GPS unit.
I'm most concerned with the strength of my pilotage and dead reckoning and whether they are up to the task, especially considering that this will be my first flight in the region. Since VOR is line-of-sight and there more than a few mountains in the region I want to feel confident that I can get us there safely in case the VOR signals aren't being received for the duration.
I have the routes planned, altitudes selected, waypoints and frequencies written down, performance planning and W+B done, etc. and I plan to speak with my local flight instructor to go over all of these materials before the flight.
In any case, it would be great to hear additional tips/tricks/things to be aware of/mistakes that you made early in your flying career so that I can be as prepared as possible moving forward!

Have you downloaded the G430 simulator from Garmin? It's free, and gives you quite a bit of practice getting used to working the unit.

@RonBeyer: I haven't yet - a great resource. Thank you!

The most important thing you can prepare is yourself and your passenger's expectations.  Really mentally prepare for the possibility of diverting, stopping unexpectedly for more gas, turning around, getting stuck out somewhere, etc.  Don't go if the weather is 'so-so' or 'barely good enough.'  Don't go, or stop, or divert if you are getting tired.  Get plenty of rest, nourishment, and water before and during your trip.

As a side note, Westwind aviation at the Deer Valley Airport in Phoenix rents out 172's with G1000 cockpits, if you're on that side of town.

@CodyP What's the hourly rate? It's only 95/hr down out in Glendale!

You assume everybody knows what "XC" is, but this site is visited from other countries than US. Could you define "XC", please ? Not a common aeronautical term up to me... (maybe I just miss that one, though)

Not sure why you think that you won’t be able to receive VOR signals. If you fly some random route, you might not be able to get a good signal, but then you’ll be using GPS so it won’t matter. But because of all of the MOAs and Restricted areas, you’ll want to fly VIctor airways over the mountains, so reception won‘t be a problem.

I would fly my defined route with google earth/map and see if I can find my way from origin to destination.

I'm in a similar boat to you and I just did my first XC from KDYL to KDDH a few months ago. Which was the first time I had been to an airport I did not go to during training. It was a lot of fun but here are a few things to consider,
Get the G430 simulator as Ron mentions. You should always familiarize yourself with all systems in an aircraft before flying it. While you don't need to know the IFR capabilities of the 430 you should understand its VFR functions well. This video covers it well.
If you don't already use it, get ForeFlight or some similar app for your phone/tablet. This will provide you all the charts and calculations you need. Most pilots are using something like this these days but often times it's not allowed during training and many new pilots don't yet have it.
Use flight following if you can. If your instructor never went over that ask a local CFI about what it is, how to get it, and why you should basically always use it when you can.
Since it's a new airport for you, watch videos of others landing there to get an idea of what the terrain and airfield looks like.
If you have, or can get access to a simulator, fly the flight in the simulator using the intended aircraft so you have an idea of time, and basic terrain features en route.
Perhaps most importantly, this is no time to push your limits both physically and mechanically. Don't depart with "just enough fuel + minimums". Don't make this a "just above VFR minimum weather flight". You will most likely be flying a contiguous leg longer than you have flown yet, understand the human limitations in a situation like this. Understand that the plane has far more endurance than your body and understand when to say "I won't be making the flight today".
Most importantly, Have FUN!

All good tips - I'll play with the 430 this week :) seems like it's intuitively similar to the G1000. Flight following was a topic on my list to discuss with my local CFI. I've used it in Hawaii for inter-island trips but don't have the procedures/frequencies down for this region. Where, in general, can this info be found?

@DavidDeVine Usually you request flight following before leaving your primary airport. Typically when the ground controller (or clearance) asks where you are going, you say "XYZ, request flight following". If you are non-towered, you would call up the center frequency for that area. Just keep in mind that flight following is workload permitting and ATC may cancel it at any time ("radar services terminated, squawk VFR") so it's best to plan as if  you won't have it and count it as a bonus if you do.

Flight following frequencies are listed in the chart supplement (the erstwhile AF/D) under "Approach/Departure Frequency". If you're operating from a towered field that's coordinating with TRACON, ground control should be able to coordinate flight following for you. If not, you need to call the departure frequency and get it in the air.

@RonBeyer Is it feasible to call ATC on the phone and let them know you are low-time in unfamiliar territory? I would think they would be less likely to drop you if they know that it's not a routine flight for you.

@TomMcW You can call them up and ask, but you are most likely going to be passed along to several different centers with a long distance trip like this. ATC has to prioritize IFR traffic and a controller can only handle so many flights, so even if you did call up and plead your case, it is still workload permitting and can be dropped at any time. If you do get dropped, hopefully you've opened a flight plan or you can call up flight watch and open one enroute, so at least somebody knows where you should be and when.

Here are some things to keep in mind, in no particular order. There is also a nice thread on reddit.

identify visual checkpoints every 10-20 NM, stay within 20-30 mins of an airfield (even if it means a slightly longer route)
Every few checkpoints (and at least every 30 mins) do a fuel check, and make sure that the fuel indicators show how much fuel you expect in the tanks.
Fill up as much as W&B allows (if it's just the two of you, you should be able to take full fuel). The only exception would be when going across the mountains if you need the climb performance (but even so, preferably wait till early morning when the DA is in your favour, and take full fuel)
don't over-exert yourself. Especially PHX-SBP and RIU-PHX, which are pretty long legs (450/550 NM), you'll definitely want to take a break.
You'll be flying in fairly mountainous terrain when crossing from AZ into CA (and even going from eastern CA to the coast). Have you done a mountain flying checkout (even if your club doesn't need one)?
Make sure you have paper charts with you, even if you're using a tablet (iPad + Foreflight, Android + any of (Avare, FltPlan Go, DroidEFB, ...)). The tablet can reboot, run out of battery, or just plain overheat and die.
Keep IFR low enroute charts on your tablet, it's much easier to find VORs and airways on there than on a VFR sectional. Familiarize yourself a little with the altitude notations on the IFR low chart to aid with situational awareness.
Pair your tablet with a Stratus/Stratux/GDL GPS so your tablet can also show your geo-ref'ed position
It might help if you make a local cross-country trip before your planned long trip to get comfortable with the plane and avionics. Definitely keep a Garmin 430 quick-reference guide with you (easily handy when flying).
Make sure you know your club's policies about off-base repairs (if required), fuel & oil reimbursement (unless you're renting dry tach), and emergency phone numbers. The route you're planning is quite long (1150NM)
Definitely get a feel for weather planning and weather. In California at least, the weather along the coast can be vastly different than further inland.
When in mountainous terrain, open (and don't forget to close) a VFR flight plan in addition to flight following. If Center/TRACON cannot keep you on radar for a while, they may sometimes drop FF. (You can simplify the flight plan open/close with the 1800wxbrief.com SMS open/close feature)

Retired airline pilot. We were based in the East and flew entirely in the East for years, then expanded and started doing some flying out West (SBA, SFO, Helena, MT, Seattle). We were required to take specific mountain flying training before operating those flights, and you should do it also. The FAA publishes some good material on it -- you should study it carefully. If it scares the daylights out of you, that's good! Seriously, make sure you understand how quickly conditions can turn dangerous if the winds aren't as predicted. Understand what you need to do to avoid putting yourself into a situation where you can't turn away and can't outclimb the terrain.
I would highly recommend that you fly some mountain flights with an instructor who is very familiar with the area before you do something as ambitious as your proposed trip. The trip has the potential to be a truly wonderful experience, but you really should understand what you need to do (and most importantly, when to stay on the ground) to keep it that way.

Probably not what you want to hear, but I think that trip is too ambitious for your current hours and experience. I would suggest restricting yourself to 200nm legs for a while. That gives you much better options to terms of taking breaks, comparing your plans to real conditions, re-evaluating conditions, updating your plans, and dealing with issues. If you do a spiral or looping plan, then you have more destination options. For example, you could fly to Palm Springs in the morning, have lunch, then to Vegas in the afternoon. Next day if conditions are still good, back to Palm springs, then home, but if you are tired, or conditions have changed, you can go straight home to Phoenix. It also means your girlfriend wont have to pee in a bottle on her first big trip with you.

I was going to say the same thing. The weather this week would have left him grounded somewhere along the route. Next week looks better, but there is usually fog in the morning and evenings along the coast and in the Central Valley. Add in the possibility of turbulence in the mountains, strong winds, and only 10 hours of daylight and the flight looks a bit too ambitious. Then add in the fact that he isn’t really familiar with the 430 and hasn’t used something like ForeFlight and he is setting himself up to be one of those 'I learned about flying from that' stories. Or worse an NTSB report.

Just one other basic thing that has not been mentioned: think thoroughly through weather and technical contingencies enroute. Three occasions in my early flying career which really had my heart pounding were when making an unplanned diversion in an unfamiliar area: Once for a thunderstorm, once for a snowstorm, and once for an alternator failure (you would have thought I would have learned after the first one!)  It really reduces the stress thinking through in advance what you would do at every point on your route if the weather ahead and around you starts to whiten your knuckles.  Identifying potential boltholes in advance and having the details readily to hand also helps to avoid the temptation just to press on.

My response may be unpopular, however it is given with over 45 years of flying experience and 30 plus years of being an active CFI.
Make several trips where you can be comfortable.  For some this may mean not taking the girlfriend, or her mother. It might mean flying with another pilot, or even solo. Before each trip bone up on the factors which could affect you. If crossing the Great Lakes, make sure you know what you need to survive if the fan quits and you hit the water, and if you don't like it, pick a different route. If crossing mountainous areas, bone up on that, and get some instruction (even if you are in the flat lands) from a CFI who is experienced in mountain flying. If you will be flying in CAVU, fine, but if not, start reading books like Bucks "Weather Flying."
Make each of these trips learning exercises, where the actual flight is the capstone project.
The second suggestion, and the often unpopular one, is to use pilotage and dead reckoning.  Yep, keep the GPS and the Foreflight or whatever you have, in your bag, and venture with more primitive tools. It will help you better understand things. Over the years my students have complained more loudly when I require them to use a mechanical E6-B.  And now, a paper chart. But several have come back to say that those exercises saved their butt, or at least reduced the heat, when they ran into real problems on a flight. Like the former student taking his TBM to Bermuda and having total electrical failure enroute. Dead reckoning seldom works absolutely perfect, even when you interpolate winds aloft from various reporting points on either side of your course. But it does work very well. Numerous private students have been faced with dual XC over mountainous areas with me, and I have "failed" their nav systems forcing them to dead reckoning and pilotage.  In the hills of Western PA or the plains of Kansas, there is a tendency for each hill and each town to look the same.  At 8500 feet, it is a big effort to circle the town at 2000 ft and read the water tower, so one presses on, keeping track of time and distance. Students are normally amazed when they reach their destination a hour and 100 miles later, within a minute or less and within  a mile.  Something they would expect with a tablet and GPS, but something that is achievable with dead reckoning.
The pitch for a manual E6-B is that the solutions are visual and almost intuitive. If punching numbers into a calculator, a data entry error could take you way off, and it just does not visualize the way it often does on an E6-B.
When you do rely on a Garmin 430 or 750 or whatever, get the simulator and get fluent.  You might spend 20 sessions at home with it, but far better there than tooling around burning 10 or 30 gallons per hour, depending upon your winged horse species. There are some problems, like last I knew the 430 sim only worked on XP, which is a fast dying breed.
In summary, two points: Know the relevant material for your flight in advance. And secondly, go back to the basics of navigation. And when you are doing really well, take the girlfriends mother. I did just that 40 some years ago, and then made her a grandmother.

I would suggest you doing the following, additional to was you were going to do and what the others suggested you:
Use an app - If you have a working cellphone, which usually works in that altitude (if you're not going too high) you can use a free app (for example as google maps), this wors fine most of the time. And will help you out when your lost (you're probably familiar with it). It works incredibly well, even though it's not made for that purpose.
If you're willing to spend a little money, there are special Flying apps, that use the GPS of your cellphone, you can add your flightplan, an'll tell you where to go. You can download the ICAO map on it, to weight and balance...
This is very good, because you can also use it in your car (to try how it works), so you're familiar it in air you can use it in additional to the Garmin.
Fly the rout on the google earth flight simulator and make notes. I usually testfly new routes on google earth. Yust make a quick google search on how to activate the google earth flight simulator.
well prepare the flight
Do almost as if it were an IFR flight
writ down frequencies, headings speeds and heights (and times, how long until you expect your checkpoint) down, befor you start.
I guess you're familiar with this proccess, since you have your licence.

If you have an Android phone, Avare is free. Definitely handy to have around. Also, assuming you download the maps in advance, you don't need the data connection to be working in flight; just the GPS receiver.

All good stuff above.  I find listening to towers of airports I plan to land at is helpful.  See how they operate, what terms they tend to use, etc.  LiveATC.net is great.


text:
What is the Keel Effect?
What is the Keel Effect and how does it happen? Is it the same as Pendulum Effect or it doesn't exist?
The Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledege by the FAA has an explanation that says:

An aircraft always has the tendency to turn the longitudonal axis of the aircraft into the relative wind. This "weather vane" tendency is similar to the keel of the ship and exerts a steadying influence on the aircraft laterally about the longitudonal axis. When an aircraft is disturbed and one wing dips, the fuselage weight acts as a pendulum returning the plane to its original attitude

I know I'm like answering my own question, but is this explanation quite right? Because in this question it is said that perhaps it doesn't exists or it means something different.

Yes, this is right. You can demonstrate this by kicking in some rudder in straight and level flight then release the pedals, the aircraft will straighten out on its own.

The only thing that I see that is wrong with the explanation is that it assumes a high wing aircraft. Low wing aircraft don't have as much "righting" tendency as a high wing, so the "pendulum" effect is lessened, but the "keel" or weather-vaning effect is still there.

@RonBeyer not entirely, the dihedral configuration (where present) adds to this effect in low wing aircraft.

@falstro Yes, depending on the degree of dihedral effects how much the effect is there, but I'd say its stronger in a high-wing having flown both myself the low-wing that I usually fly requires a little more opposite aileron to come back where the high-wings is more of a relaxing on the controls into the turn.

Related, (especially for low wing aircraft).

Does the quote refer to turning the longitudinal axis (pitching or yawing), or turning about the longitudinal axis (rolling)?

@RonBeyer Has it been decided whether the "pendulum effect" is a real thing or not? There seems to be some disagreement over it. I can't find it at the moment, but I'm certain Peter Kämpf has started before that there is no passive aerodynamic way to right a plane about the roll axis

Strictly there is no pendulum effect, it is not possible with available forces. There are combinations of other forces that have the illusion of a pendulum effect because they can act at small angles that are not visually obvious.

According to the keel effect page on Wikipedia it is the rolling moment created by the fuselage and vertical surfaces in a sideslip if the center of pressure is vertically offset from the center of gravity.
Functions of a keel
The keel of a ship (besides shifting the center of gravity below the metacenter) provides a stabilizing side force when the ship rolls. The same is achieved by a tail surface, but in aviation this is called roll damping. The much larger wing tends to dominate roll damping, so the effect of the vertical surface is small.
The next task of the keel is to balance the side force and rolling moment from the sails in crosswind conditions. It does this by letting the boat build up a sideslip condition until the side force from the keel and hull balances the side force from the sails, and the rolling moment from the side force and from heeling balances the rolling moment from the sails. The keel effect is this rolling moment due to a sideslip condition.
A few aircraft with very small wings and large vertical surfaces do indeed suffer from excessive moments created by side loads on those vertical surfaces. The best known of those is probably the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter. The massive tail on the upswept rear fuselage made 10° anhedral necessary to get the sideslip-induced rolling moment right.
Pendulum effect
The Wikipedia page also mentions the pendulum effect and calls both the fuselage contribution to the dihedral effect. Man, if there is ever a competition for the most misleading name of an effect, this would be the winning entry.
A pendulum is a mass mounted below the pivot or the metacenter, so it will stabilize in the down position. It seems the adherents of the pendulum effect belief believe that the plane is somehow hinged at the center of the wing. This is so wrong! A flying aircraft is not hinged, so all motion is around the center of gravity.
This is different with airships: As @JanHudec points out in the comments, the buoyancy of the lifting gas always works against gravity whereas the lift of a wing acts perpendicular to its span and the airspeed. This does produce a moment when the airship rolls, and the heavy gondola is pulled down by the same effect which pulls down a pendulum. Also, due to an airship's low density (by definition very close to the density of the air it displaces) the aerodynamic side forces on an airship are much larger compared to the inertial forces. This lets the airship effectively pivot around a point near the center of the envelope. Note that airships have no means of roll control - it is just gravity which ensures that the gondola stays on the lower side of the hull.
Now you can argue that the same is true for aircraft, only with much smaller aerodynamic forces. Yes, but those side forces are vanishingly small in comparison to the wing's aerodynamic forces which, again by definition, are close to the weight of the aircraft. A small change there will completely dominate the picture, and the small loads on the fuselage are just a rounding error. By moving the control surfaces, the pilot can shift the lift vector around almost as he/she likes, and the forces on the fuselage are insignificant.
Note that knife edge flight, a situation when the side force on the fuselage really is close to the aircraft's weight, needs lots of fuselage area and a powerful engine. Fuselage loads in normal flight are a fraction of those in knife edge flight.

It seems like I remember you saying one that there is no passive aerodynamic way to make an airplane return to wings-level after an upset. Is that basically what you're saying here, that the effects that are supposed to do that are just too insignificant to have any real effect?

@TomMcW: No, I certainly didn't mean to say that. If you have no sideslip, there is indeed no passive aerodynamic way to right the airplane up. Here we are talking about a sideslip, and that results normally in a rolling moment, but this need not be in the uprighting direction. If the aircraft banks left wing down and yaws nose left, the sideslip will make it roll further to the left.

I believe the main difference with airship is, that buoyancy always acts upwards in the centre of lift, so if the centre of gravity is not directly below it, the lift and weight forces will shift laterally without changing direction, thus creating a restoring rolling moment similar to how a hinge works. But dynamic lift is always perpendicular to the airfoil, so no moment is created with banking alone.

@JanHudec: Yes, that is right, and I totally overlooked this detail. I will edit the answer.

authors: Γιώργος Αγγελής


text:
Why is a blunt trailing edge a better stabilizer at hypersonic speeds?
Here is what I read about the X-15 spaceplane:

The X-15 had a thick wedge tail to enable it to fly in a steady manner at hypersonic speeds.[14] This produced a significant amount of drag at lower speeds;

A wedge shape was used because it is more effective than the conventional tail as a stabilizing surface at hypersonic speeds. A vertical-tail area equal to 60 percent of the wing area was required to give the X-15 adequate directional stability.

The X-15 does indeed have flat trailing edges on its stabilizers. Some photos show this.

So why does this produce better stability at hypersonic speeds? I thought stabilizers were more about the total surface area anyway. It just seems so counter-productive to make a flat end like that giving huge drag, especially for hypersonic stuff.

You may wish to rationize it by looking at a "boat tailled" bullet.  At hypersonic speeds and altitudes, the density difference between the compression wave and ambient air may be well, like air and water. So rather than a higher viscous drag longer tail, it can be truncated, using the relative near vacuum behind the surface as a stabilizer. The compressed airwave pattern behind it would resemble the wake of a high speed boat, crossing well behind the aircraft.

@RobertDiGiovanni What does "boat tailed" bullet mean? If your talking about normal bullets, the muzzle velocity is usually between Mach 1 and 2.5. That is not hypersonic at all.

@RobertDiGiovanni Compare the range between regular and spitzer bullets. A blunt end does indeed cause a lot of drag. Having been developed some 120-150 years ago, bullet shapes are not the ideal example of a low drag body.

@Peter Kampf But drag was needed to help stabilize the aircraft, notice this novel approach allows for greater stability, at glide, WITHOUT adding MASS to the tail of the aircraft (definite improvement over the 307, no?), as a larger tail would have affected the center of gravity.  This may have been "stability insurance", but at those speeds, who could blame them,

A converging shape at hypersonic speed in a low-pressure medium will produce close to vacuum pressure on its surfaces (hypersonic shielding). A small sideslip angle will only result in a very small pressure difference between both sides.
Contrast this with a diverging shape which produces higher than ambient pressure on both sides. In hypersonic flow this pressure grows approximately with the square of the inclination angle. The same sideslip angle, therefore, will result in a much higher pressure difference, rendering the diverging shape more effective in sideslip.
A more detailed discussion can be found here, page 11-6 to 11-8.
A wedge shape was chosen since it allowed to predict forces and temperatures with greater confidence than would had been possible with a more complex shape.

Any drag (including a streamer or parachute) adds to stability. The X-15 flew with what amounted to a speed brake on the tail to account for potentially disasterous destabilizing forces on the nose at those speeds, as one Neil Armstrong famously experienced barely making it back to the Mojave after overshooting the base and flying out over Los Angeles.  The return glide was close.  But yes, the wedge forces would be more predictable.

@RobertDiGiovanni: Please read the linked paper. It explains the wedge effect very nicely and drag is not part of it.

Page 11-8 bottom paragraph certainly is interesting.

Thanks for @PeterKampf's answer and reference for the illumination. This is to complement the results drawn within its reference, which I don't think are completely accurate.
As shown in Anderson, Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, the Newtonian theory is an ok first cut at hypersonic aerodynamics: due to the vast difference between the speed of sound and the airspeed, air flow is basically deflected by whatever shape it encounters. For a flat plate at an angle of attack ($\alpha$) with the hypersonic airflow, the bottom surface (incident with the airflow) will have a coefficient of pressure:
$$C_{p,l}=2\sin^2\alpha$$
while the upper surface will have no effect:
$$C_{p,u}=0$$
Combined together, this makes a coefficient of lift:
$$C_l=sgn(\alpha)*2\sin^2\alpha\cos\alpha\approx sgn(\alpha)*2\alpha^2$$
Therefore, for a flat plate, the lift is nonlinear with respect to the flow incidence. For a vertical stabilizer, the directional stability would vanish at small perturbation and would also be nonlinear.
With a wedge shape making a half angle $\theta$, and for flow incidence smaller than $\theta$, the lift is:
$$C_l=2\sin^2(\alpha+\theta)\cos(\alpha+\theta)-2\sin^2(\alpha-\theta)\cos(\alpha-\theta)\approx2\theta\alpha$$
Therefore, for flow incidence smaller than $\theta$, a wedge shape has a linear lift with respect to flow incidence and a fairly constant stability derivative even at small perturbations.

I will add constructively that these answers do seem to validate the need for all moving control surfaces, as the trailing edge is effectively "blanked out" (to the point of vacuum) at hypersonic speeds.